Content
71%Weight 40%Scale 1-5Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The skill body is a well-structured, actionable review workflow with concrete commands, per-step validation criteria, and a ready-to-use report template. Its main weakness is progressive disclosure: it delegates the core checks to a checks.md file that is not present in the bundle.
Suggestions
Ship the referenced checks.md (or inline the common and UI Freeze checks) so the core review criteria are actually available.
Add a brief feedback-loop note for the NEEDS-INFO path (what to re-check once the requester supplies missing evidence) to push workflow clarity toward 5.
Tighten the persona/rationale paragraph to reduce the few tokens of over-explanation.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is efficient and assumes competence — concrete commands and a report template with minimal padding — though the persona/rationale lines ('a freeze exception is an exception, not the default') could be trimmed slightly, matching the efficient-with-minor-trim anchor. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides concrete executable commands (pull-lp-source, dget, seeded-in-ubuntu) and a copy-ready PASS/FAIL/N/A report template, with the minor gap that the actual check definitions are delegated to checks.md rather than inlined. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Five numbered steps each close with an explicit '*Criterion:' checkpoint and a comprehensive report checklist, but there is no true error-recovery feedback loop, keeping it just below the top anchor. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is well-sectioned and signals a one-level reference to [checks.md](checks.md), but no bundle exists and checks.md is absent, so the key detailed content it points to is missing — a navigation gap that drops it to the some-structure anchor. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |